Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Jonny, 19 Dec 2018.
It might be the point do they really mean it?
Of course not
I honestly think that many of them do. They want to do good (although what they regard as doing good may be radically different than what you or I do!).
They are a bit like crayonistas - intentions are good but their solutions are....well.....
I feel for some MPs because at many points they're going to have to make unpopular decisions and let down those who voted them in. Your mention of crayonistas is perfectly apt; you'd hope an MP is looking at the bigger picture and having to make a judgement based on more information than a lot of people have.
Obviously that's not always the case. Some times they just have to follow party lines, but I do think that many MPs at least start out with honest intentions to 'change the world' (for the better).
By shouting down all MPs, we risk honest people not wishing to touch the job with a bargepole and only those who frankly don't care, because they'll just do and say whatever the need to in order to get the job, stepping up.
Should be kicked out of parliament and banned from ever standing as an MP again.
The only person who entered parliament with honorable intent was Guy Fawkes!
Imagine the outcome if he was successful though?
She and her lying brother have been jailed.
From the BBC story:
Me, on reading that opening: "She's been jailed for 30 years"? The actual sentence is a bit further down, but that seems badly written.
Just means that she be only serving porridge for 6 weeks and 6 weeks on licence with I think around a year on probation licence.
A 3 month jail sentence doesn't automatically mean that she serve all of it inside but I say it's a fairly good chance that she be sent to HMP Peterborough as 1. It's the local prison and 2. It has both male and female inmates.
But don't the sentences sound extremely soft when compared with the 8 months for Chris Huhne for perverting the course of justice in an apparently rather similar case and the 18 months for Jonathan Aitken's perjury?
I agree, what she got was more or less a slap on the wrist compared to her former colleagues named above.
Under the provisions of the Recall of MPs Act, the recall process would kick in... But if she carries on with the appeal then the recall process is held until that is completed.
If she does not appeal, the Recall process will begin automatically. Using the most recent figures, just shy of 7,300 electors need to sign the petition to unseat her.
Will she still get her pay?
Yes. She is an Independent MP until decided otherwise.
Apparently she's not going to resign and so she will get paid until the appeal and recall processes are exhausted. I suppose she feels that as her reputation is in tatters and she has no hope of a future legal or political career she may as well grab the money for as long as she can.
Meanwhile, the people of Peterborough have no representation in Parliament.
Her defence counsel is quoted as calling being an MP as her only income.
What i heard on the radio (bad receiving connection) is that she is thrown out of the party?
Is she barred from the House? I knew she was now forced to be an Independent MP and would face a possible recall election but I was under the impression that her sentence wasn't long enough to trigger her being unable to discharge her duties as MP?
Yes, she was expelled after being found guilty and refusing to resign as an MP.
She's not going to be doing much of her job for 6 weeks whilst she's in jail.
The recall process has three methods of being triggered:
A conviction resulting in a custodial sentence (including suspended sentences)
Being barred from the House for two weeks.
Being found guilty of an offence relating to expenses.
In this case it's the first condition that will apply.
Yes true, I had rather overlooked that! (I blame it on being up too early )
10 miles too fast. I find it a harsh penalty to pay. Alcohol is a different matter. We in the Netherlands say that some occupations need to be an example for the society.
It wasn't the speeding ticket that put her in prison.
It was the attempted fraud that did that.
She does not need to resign as she was sentenced for less than 12 months. However if 10% of her constituents sign a recall motion there will be a by - election which Labour have indicated they will support.
I wonder how many commentators here would resign from a well paid job with no alternative employment to go to. I suspect few and I would be suspicious of anyone who insisted they would. Most people would sit tight and keep the money coming in as long as they could. Afterall you cant claim benefits if you resign and she has no chance of resuming her former career! OF COURSE the moral question is completely different.
As for the final line: the people of Peterborough would have no representation, if she resigned instantly, until such time as a bye election could be arranged. Her constituency and Westminster offices should still be open and correspondence should still be dealt with.
Surely most people would be sacked immediately in these circumstances? One rule for MPs and another for the rest of us though.
I take your point about staff keeping things ticking over in her absence but there are some very important votes coming up which are likely to be close. A by-Election will be needed sooner or later and I'd rather the process was started now to minimise the time Peterborough was effectively without an MP.
Fraud because she was driving, but claimed someone else did it?